Minnesota AI Ethics Rules for Attorneys

Minnesota has established itself as a practical and progressive jurisdiction for addressing attorney use of artificial intelligence, with the Minnesota Supreme Court and Minnesota State Bar Association providing clear guidance through application of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC). The state’s legal community emphasizes responsible innovation while maintaining rigorous ethical standards.

Minnesota Regulatory Overview

#

Minnesota Supreme Court

#

The Minnesota Supreme Court has ultimate authority over attorney regulation, including the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct. The Court oversees attorney discipline through the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility.

Key Contacts:

• Website: mncourts.gov
• Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility: (651) 296-3952

Minnesota State Bar Association

#

The Minnesota State Bar Association (MSBA) is a voluntary professional organization providing resources, ethics guidance, and continuing education for Minnesota attorneys.

Key Contacts:

• Website: mnbar.org
• Ethics Hotline: (651) 227-8266
• Address: 600 Nicollet Mall, Suite 380, Minneapolis, MN 55402

Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility

#

The Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility (OLPR) investigates complaints against attorneys and prosecutes disciplinary proceedings.

AI Ethics Guidance Status

#

Current Position

#

Minnesota addresses AI through its existing MRPC framework:

• MRPC applies fully to AI use
• Technology competence is explicitly required
• Client protection remains the central focus
• Practical guidance through MSBA resources

MSBA Technology Initiatives

#

The Minnesota State Bar Association has addressed AI through:

• Technology and Practice Committee work
• CLE programs on AI ethics and use
• Practice resources on AI adoption
• Member communications on emerging issues

Ethics Board Opinions

#

The Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board has issued opinions relevant to technology use, establishing principles applicable to AI.

Core Ethical Obligations

#

Confidentiality (MRPC 1.6)

#

Minnesota’s confidentiality rule establishes:

Scope of Protection:

• All information relating to representation of a client
• Applies regardless of source
• Continues after representation ends

AI-Specific Requirements:

• Assess AI platforms for adequate security
• Review Terms of Service and privacy policies
• Verify AI providers don’t use client data for training
• Consider enhanced protections for sensitive matters

Rule 1.6(c) - Reasonable Efforts: Minnesota specifically requires:

“A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client.”

Reasonable Efforts Include:

• Understanding AI data processing practices
• Implementing appropriate security measures
• Using enterprise AI solutions when appropriate
• Training staff on confidentiality

Competence (MRPC 1.1)

#

Minnesota’s competence rule has been updated to address technology:

Comment [8] - Technology Competence: Minnesota has adopted the technology competence standard:

“To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.”

AI Competence Requirements:

• Understand AI capabilities and limitations
• Recognize that AI can produce hallucinations
• Know when AI is appropriate for specific tasks
• Stay current with AI developments

Verification Duties:

• Independently verify all AI-generated citations
• Confirm accuracy of legal propositions
• Check quoted language against originals
• Use authoritative sources (Westlaw, Lexis)

Supervision (MRPC 5.1 and 5.3)

#

Minnesota’s supervision rules establish accountability:

Managerial and Supervisory Lawyers (Rule 5.1):

• Make reasonable efforts to ensure firm policies address AI
• Directly supervise lawyers using AI for competent use
• Ensure compliance with professional obligations

Nonlawyer Assistants (Rule 5.3):

• Supervise AI as a nonlawyer assistant
• Remain responsible for AI outputs
• Implement verification procedures
• Ensure staff understands confidentiality

Candor to the Tribunal (MRPC 3.3)

#

Minnesota’s candor rule prohibits:

• Making false statements of fact or law
• Failing to correct false statements
• Offering false evidence

AI Application:

• AI hallucinations = false statements if not caught
• No defense based on AI reliance
• Full attorney responsibility for filed content

Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct Implicated

#

Minnesota Court Developments

#

U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota

#

Federal courts in Minnesota have addressed AI:

Key Developments:

• Monitor standing orders for AI requirements
• Some judges may require certification
• Check local rules for AI provisions

Best Practices:

• Review assigned judge’s individual practices
• Comply with any disclosure mandates
• Disclose AI use when required or prudent

Minnesota State Courts

#

State courts are monitoring AI developments:

• Minnesota Judicial Branch considering statewide guidance
• Courts have sanctions authority for fabricated content
• Emphasis on attorney accountability
• Potential for certification requirements

Billing for AI-Assisted Work

#

Fee Reasonableness Under MRPC 1.5

#

Minnesota’s fee rule requires reasonableness:

Factors for Reasonableness:

• Time and labor required
• Novelty and difficulty of questions
• Skill requisite for proper performance
• Fee customarily charged locally

Appropriate AI Billing:

• Time spent developing prompts
• Time spent reviewing and verifying outputs
• Time spent editing and refining content
• Actual time invested in work

Inappropriate Billing:

• Billing for time saved by AI efficiency
• Charging manual rates for automated work
• Billing unverified outputs as completed work

Client Communication

#

• Discuss AI billing impact at engagement
• Consider alternative fee arrangements
• Provide transparent billing statements

Communication and Consent

#

Client Communication (MRPC 1.4)

#

Minnesota requires keeping clients reasonably informed:

Disclosure Considerations:

• Disclose when AI materially affects representation
• Inform clients if confidential data enters AI systems
• Communicate when AI affects fees
• Respond to client inquiries

Engagement Letter Provisions: Consider addressing:

• Scope of AI use
• Types of AI tools employed
• Confidentiality protections
• Verification procedures
• Fee implications

Obtaining Consent

#

When appropriate, obtain consent for:

• Input of confidential information to AI
• Use of AI for substantive legal work
• Specific platforms with particular data practices

Practical Compliance Steps for Minnesota Attorneys

#

Minnesota-Specific Practice Considerations

#

Corporate Practice in Minneapolis-St. Paul

#

Minnesota’s significant corporate presence creates opportunities:

Considerations:

• Corporate clients may have AI expectations
• Understand client technology policies
• Maintain competitive AI capabilities
• Balance innovation with compliance

Greater Minnesota Practice

#

For attorneys in rural Minnesota:

Special Considerations:

• AI may enhance access to resources
• Internet reliability affects AI accessibility
• Same ethics rules apply statewide
• Consider data security for cloud services

Legal Aid and Pro Bono

#

For attorneys providing legal services to low-income clients:

• AI may enhance access to justice
• Same ethics rules apply
• Consider client vulnerability in AI decisions
• Maintain quality standards

Malpractice and Insurance Considerations

#

Professional Liability Coverage

#

Minnesota attorneys should evaluate coverage:

Key Questions:

• Does policy cover AI-related errors?
• Any exclusions for technology claims?
• Required disclosure of AI use?
• Premium implications?

Documentation for Defense:

• Maintain verification procedure records
• Document AI policies and training
• Keep quality control evidence

Minnesota Lawyers Mutual

#

Minnesota’s bar-related insurer may provide guidance on:

• AI coverage considerations
• Risk management for AI use
• Best practices for documentation

Cyber Liability

#

Consider coverage for:

• Data breaches involving AI
• Third-party vendor failures
• Client data exposure

OLPR Guidance and Discipline

#

Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility

#

The OLPR handles attorney discipline in Minnesota:

AI-Related Concerns:

• Failure to verify AI outputs could be neglect
• Confidentiality breaches through AI may be violations
• AI misuse could constitute misconduct

Best Practices for Compliance:

• Maintain documentation of AI use
• Implement verification procedures
• Train on ethics requirements
• Report issues promptly when discovered

Frequently Asked Questions

#

Resources

#

• Minnesota Judicial Branch
• Minnesota State Bar Association
• Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct
• Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility
• MSBA Ethics Resources
• ABA Formal Opinion 512 - National guidance on attorney AI use
• AI Hallucinations in Courts - Sanctions cases and verification